Responses to Comments from Ben MorrowMovable Type Pro 4.382013-11-21T07:00:31Zhttp://blogs.perl.org/mt/mt-cp.fcgi?__mode=feed&_type=replies&blog_id=0&id=411To clarify: The mop and the signatures would not have to be there in the first release of the new major version, but the backwards compatibility breaking changes needs to be done by then.tag:blogs.perl.org,2013:/users/ovid//11.4260#3552682013-02-07T06:44:41ZOlof Stockhaus
To clarify: The mop and the signatures would not have to be there in the first release of the new major version, but the backwards compatibility breaking changes needs to be done by then.
]]>
However, most people who want the lawn cleared out are really interested in re-modeling the house, not sitting in the back room.
For me, the "mess on the lawn" is not Perl 6 but the deterioriating state of the CPAN. For anyone who isn't a power user living on the bleeding edge, it's challenging to find good modules on the CPAN and distinguish them from things that are broken, have horrible implementations, are bug-ridden, or simply won't compile on newer releases.
I'm not sure yet exactly how to go about solving this though.tag:blogs.perl.org,2013:/users/ovid//11.4260#3553322013-02-07T18:07:26ZEtherhttps://metacpan.org/author/ETHER

However, most people who want the lawn cleared out are really interested in re-modeling the house, not sitting in the back room.

For me, the "mess on the lawn" is not Perl 6 but the deterioriating state of the CPAN. For anyone who isn't a power user living on the bleeding edge, it's challenging to find good modules on the CPAN and distinguish them from things that are broken, have horrible implementations, are bug-ridden, or simply won't compile on newer releases.

I'm not sure yet exactly how to go about solving this though.

]]>
I really LOVE LOVE LOVE the version being the year track. That solves it all.tag:blogs.perl.org,2013:/users/ovid//11.4260#3553352013-02-07T18:44:35ZRobert
I really LOVE LOVE LOVE the version being the year track. That solves it all.
]]>
"it has the appearance of allowing breaking changes yearly."
I don't buy that line of argumentation at all. tag:blogs.perl.org,2013:/users/ovid//11.4260#3553362013-02-07T18:51:06ZRobert
"it has the appearance of allowing breaking changes yearly."

I don't buy that line of argumentation at all.

]]>
Nothing would change about the way the Perl maintainers announce versions and nothing needs to.
This is purely a "no major version" perception problem that is solved (IMO) by going to a yearly naming scheme of some time like "Perl YYYY.M".
I do not believe at all that going to that scheme gives the perception that the maintainers are suddenly breaking things nor that backwards-compatibility got thrown out the window.
I do believe it gets us around, elegantly, the naming issue.tag:blogs.perl.org,2013:/users/ovid//11.4260#3553432013-02-07T19:08:40ZRobert
Nothing would change about the way the Perl maintainers announce versions and nothing needs to.

This is purely a "no major version" perception problem that is solved (IMO) by going to a yearly naming scheme of some time like "Perl YYYY.M".

I do not believe at all that going to that scheme gives the perception that the maintainers are suddenly breaking things nor that backwards-compatibility got thrown out the window.

I do believe it gets us around, elegantly, the naming issue.

]]>
Nice idea. In this way we can convey the message to the world that Perl is not dead. Either we can go for Perl 7 or can agree on yearly releases (as suggested by Toby).tag:blogs.perl.org,2013:/users/ovid//11.4260#3553722013-02-08T04:28:31ZChankey Pathak
Nice idea. In this way we can convey the message to the world that Perl is not dead. Either we can go for Perl 7 or can agree on yearly releases (as suggested by Toby).
]]>
There's a problem here that I don't see being discussed. "Perl7" or "Perl2013" or "Perl Foo" is a fork, plain and simple. The 5.xx line will not end just because somebody decides to evolve Perl5 into something not quite compatible with what it was. There will still have to bug fixes, which means maintainers, which means itches to scratch and ideas to try. In short order, we will have Perl v5.2x, and Perl6, AND Perl 20xx.
Stevan Little already explained that one of the reasons he decided to build from scratch with Moe is that there's a serious shortage or surgeons qualified to operate on the current Perl5 implementation. And another reason is that this implementation is a terrible candidate for major surgery. Choosing new names or numbers won't change any of that. I say wait until we have something to show the world before we trumpet huge improvements. If Moe produces an architecture and a new slimmer core that we can build both backward-compat modules and great-leap-forward modules on, THEN talk about what to call it.tag:blogs.perl.org,2013:/users/ovid//11.4260#3554552013-02-08T17:05:38Zarrestee
There's a problem here that I don't see being discussed. "Perl7" or "Perl2013" or "Perl Foo" is a fork, plain and simple. The 5.xx line will not end just because somebody decides to evolve Perl5 into something not quite compatible with what it was. There will still have to bug fixes, which means maintainers, which means itches to scratch and ideas to try. In short order, we will have Perl v5.2x, and Perl6, AND Perl 20xx.

Stevan Little already explained that one of the reasons he decided to build from scratch with Moe is that there's a serious shortage or surgeons qualified to operate on the current Perl5 implementation. And another reason is that this implementation is a terrible candidate for major surgery. Choosing new names or numbers won't change any of that. I say wait until we have something to show the world before we trumpet huge improvements. If Moe produces an architecture and a new slimmer core that we can build both backward-compat modules and great-leap-forward modules on, THEN talk about what to call it.

]]>
Perl 6 already has Rakudo with a monthly release cycle with year and month in the name. At the moment we can all work with Rakudo Star 2013.01 and work is being done on 2013.02.
Renaming Perl 5.20 to Perl 7 and skipping Perl 6 is throwing away man-years of work, energy, inspiration. Just talking about it might demotivate everybody in the community of Perl 6 developers.
Many people are not interested at all in Perl 6, even not knowing that enormous efforts are made to make Perl 6 more and more backwards compatible with Perl 5, and giving Perl 6 more features that people are waiting for.
The problems of Perl 5 will not be solved by renaming it Perl 7. Anybody watching Perl will see that it is a trick. We will be mocked. No problem will be solved.tag:blogs.perl.org,2013:/users/ovid//11.4260#3559632013-02-10T22:42:56ZWendyhttp://wendyga.wordpress.com/
Perl 6 already has Rakudo with a monthly release cycle with year and month in the name. At the moment we can all work with Rakudo Star 2013.01 and work is being done on 2013.02.

Renaming Perl 5.20 to Perl 7 and skipping Perl 6 is throwing away man-years of work, energy, inspiration. Just talking about it might demotivate everybody in the community of Perl 6 developers.

Many people are not interested at all in Perl 6, even not knowing that enormous efforts are made to make Perl 6 more and more backwards compatible with Perl 5, and giving Perl 6 more features that people are waiting for.

The problems of Perl 5 will not be solved by renaming it Perl 7. Anybody watching Perl will see that it is a trick. We will be mocked. No problem will be solved.

]]>
I believe that such action would be a real nail in the coffin. After all the talk of Perl 6 being the language of the future, people see a Perl 7 release, think "Wow lets take a look" and Perl becomes a laughing stock when they all see it's just a patched Perl 5. What's worse this would jeopardise Perl 6, and all that's gone into it. I think a better title would have been "How to wipe Perl out for good with a simple version number change" or more simple "The Perl 7 one liner of death".
Perl 6 is the future, an I firmly believe it'll fix everything. If people are impatient then the solution is to contribute to that project.
So IMHO no, no, no, please no.tag:blogs.perl.org,2013:/users/ovid//11.4260#3560272013-02-11T13:28:01ZCosmicNet
I believe that such action would be a real nail in the coffin. After all the talk of Perl 6 being the language of the future, people see a Perl 7 release, think "Wow lets take a look" and Perl becomes a laughing stock when they all see it's just a patched Perl 5. What's worse this would jeopardise Perl 6, and all that's gone into it. I think a better title would have been "How to wipe Perl out for good with a simple version number change" or more simple "The Perl 7 one liner of death".

Perl 6 is the future, an I firmly believe it'll fix everything. If people are impatient then the solution is to contribute to that project.

So IMHO no, no, no, please no.

]]>
As an alternative idea - how about we pick a name rather than getting even further into the numbers game?
See my blog post on the subject for my suggestion as to what to pick.
-- mst, outtag:blogs.perl.org,2013:/users/ovid//11.4260#3562742013-02-14T16:08:44ZMatt S Trout (mst)http://www.shadowcat.co.uk/blog/matt-s-trout/
As an alternative idea - how about we pick a name rather than getting even further into the numbers game?

]]>
Yes Jenda, these clearly look like dead projects to me. You’re talking out of your ass. As for your opinion that this supposed failure of the effort entitles you to give the people who are working on it a public “fuck you”, how about a nice big cup of shut-the-hell-up.
Thank you.tag:blogs.perl.org,2013:/users/ovid//11.4260#11259902013-06-24T01:35:54ZAristotlehttp://plasmasturm.org/
Yes Jenda, these clearlylook likedead projects to me. You’re talking out of your ass. As for your opinion that this supposed failure of the effort entitles you to give the people who are working on it a public “fuck you”, how about a nice big cup of shut-the-hell-up.

Thank you.

]]>
(This is where Smalltalk’s “it’s all a live image” approach has the upper hand: metaprogramming doesn’t hide things from you, because generated methods show up in the code browser just like any hand-written method would.)tag:blogs.perl.org,2013:/users/ovid//11.4896#11305252013-07-14T02:20:27ZAristotlehttp://plasmasturm.org/
(This is where Smalltalk’s “it’s all a live image” approach has the upper hand: metaprogramming doesn’t hide things from you, because generated methods show up in the code browser just like any hand-written method would.)
]]>
I actually do have some code up on the cpan that is automatically generated from a template at build time... I've been meaning to make the templating a little more usable, so thanks for the reminder. :)tag:blogs.perl.org,2013:/users/ovid//11.4896#11359632013-07-24T03:06:27ZEtherhttps://metacpan.org/author/ETHER
I actually do have some code up on the cpan that is automatically generated from a template at build time... I've been meaning to make the templating a little more usable, so thanks for the reminder. :)
]]>
..And why does the comma operator behave like this?
The Camel Book mentions "This is just like C's comma operator."
I have not thought about it enough, but the current behaviour does not seem intuitive, and therefore seems to violate the famous principle of least astonishment (for me). Ha! :-)
But as chris says, it is probably my duty not to be astonished.. ;-)tag:blogs.perl.org,2013:/users/ovid//11.5327#12493402013-11-09T19:48:38Z:m)http://puffin.ch
..And why does the comma operator behave like this?

The Camel Book mentions "This is just like C's comma operator."

I have not thought about it enough, but the current behaviour does not seem intuitive, and therefore seems to violate the famous principle of least astonishment (for me). Ha! :-)

But as chris says, it is probably my duty not to be astonished.. ;-)

]]>
My first guess was 6 which is of course not correct. Have to revisit http://perldoc.perl.org/perlop.html tag:blogs.perl.org,2013:/users/ovid//11.5327#12992582013-11-21T07:00:31ZPradeep Panthttp://about.me/ppant
My first guess was 6 which is of course not correct. Have to revisit http://perldoc.perl.org/perlop.html
]]>